another thought is that it does no apparent harm and could help some.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>
To: "Kelly Ford" <kelly@kellford.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Is embedded audio helping accessibility?
It's even good for blind folk under certain circumstances. those who
have other print disabilities in some instances can be reinsforced by
this as they read the page highlight or not.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Ford" <kelly@kellford.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Is embedded audio helping accessibility?
I won't claim to be an expert but would be interested in hearing the
opinions of those with more professional/experiential backgrounds in the
areas of folks who can't read the text for reasons other than blindness.
The biggest thing folks in this category have told me is that they want
the text highlighted as it is read.
Do folks think this sort of audio reading would be good for a portal as
was original described I believe or for longer narrative texts.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> At 8:36 AM -0700 2001/8/02, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> >Assuming it's coded sensibly, it's roughly neutral, but tends to be
more
> >of a "help" than a "hindrance". It's usually true that most users
with
> >special needs have assistive technology, but not always.
>
> I want to amend this.
>
> It's usually true that most _blind_ users have assistive technology,
or
> at least that they would need it to get that far. Without some sort
of
> assistive tech (screenreader, etc) won't be able to get to your web
site
> in the first place; simply starting an application (such as a web
> browser) would be next to impossible.
>
> However, it's also usually true that most users who have _other_
> disabilities likely _don't_ have an appropriate assistive technology
> program or device. In this case, talking about the benefits of an
> audio track, there are two groups who would benefit from such a
> thing:
>
> 1. People who can't see the text.
>
> 2. People who can't read the text.
>
> The first group are the blind users; these are the ones who _probably_
> already have a solution, in the form of a screenreader (or Braille
> terminal or whatever).
>
> The second group includes a NUMBER of people -- adult non-readers,
> people reading in a foreign language, children, and people with
> cognitive disabilities that prevent them from being able to read
> text easily, but who may be able to understand spoken words -- or
> spoken words PLUS text -- easier than text alone.
>
> These audiences overwhelmingly do NOT have access to screenreaders
> and the like, and for those people, embedded audio would indeed
> prove beneficial.
>
> So while I make the correction above, I still stand by my suggestion
> that you not remove this, as it could help some people.
>
> --Kynn
>
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
> Technical Developer Liaison
> Reef North America
> Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
> Tel +1 949-567-7006
> ________________________________________
> BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
> ________________________________________
> http://www.reef.com
>